The aim of the present thesis is to reconcile two opposing intuitions; one originating from mainstream individualistic epistemology and the other one from social epistemology. In particular, conceiving of knowledge as a cognitive phenomenon, mainstream epistemologists focus on the individual as the proper epistemic subject. Yet, clearly, knowledge-acquisition many times appears to be a social process and, sometimes, to such an extent—as in the case of scientific knowledge—that it has been argued there might be knowledge that is not possessed by any individual alone. In order to make sense of such contradictory claims, I combine virtue reliabilism in mainstream epistemology with two hypotheses from externalist philosophy of mind, viz., the extended and distributed cognition hypotheses. Reading virtue reliabilism along the lines suggested by the hypothesis of extended cognition allows for a weak anti-individualistic understanding of knowledge, which has already been suggested on the basis of considerations about testimonial knowledge: knowledge, many times, has a dual nature; it is both social and individual. Provided, however, the possibility of distributed cognition and group agency, we can go even further by making a case for a robust version of antiindividualism in mainstream epistemology. This is because knowledge may not always be the product of any individual’s cognitive ability and, thereby, not creditable to any individual alone. Knowledge, instead, might be the product of an epistemic group agent’s collective cognitive ability and, thus, attributable only to the group as a whole. Still, however, being able—on the basis of the hypothesis of distributed cognition—to recognize a group as a cognitive subject in itself allows for proponents of virtue reliabilism to legitimately apply their individualistic theory of knowledge to such extreme cases as well. Put another way, mainstream individualistic epistemologists now have the means to make sense of the claim that p is known by S, even though it is not known by any individual alone.

I explore the epistemic justification of self-beliefs regarding personality traits within the internalism-externalism debate. Historically, the question of epistemic justification of self-beliefs has been discussed only with respect to our beliefs about our current mental states while the epistemic justification of our self-beliefs about our personality traits was assumed not to be any different from the justification of our beliefs about the external world. However, I use empirical psychology to highlight a few unique characteristics of our self-beliefs about personality traits that make the typical application of internalist or externalist standards less straightforward. These characteristics have to do with the biases and the self-verification that accompany our self-beliefs about our personality traits. I argue that externalism, in general, and virtue reliabilism, in particular, are more suitable to the context of our self-beliefs about our personality traits than other theories of justification. However, I contend that within the virtue reliabilism framework, a self-belief-forming process can become more competent if it generates self-belief from the instances where individuals manifest the trait in question while having the motivation and opportunity to do otherwise. I show how this condition makes the self-belief-forming process more competent and, therefore, makes the produced self-beliefs more epistemically justified. / Thesis / Master of Philosophy (MA)

Bayesian Epistemology is a general framework for thinking about agents who have beliefs that come in degrees. Theories in this framework give accounts of rational belief and rational belief change, which share two key features: (i) rational belief states are represented with probability functions, and (ii) rational belief change results from the acquisition of evidence. This dissertation focuses specifically on the second feature. I pose the Evidence Question: What is it to have evidence? Before addressing this question we must have an understanding of Bayesian Epistemology. The first chapter argues that we should understand Bayesian Epistemology as giving us theories that are evaluative and not action-guiding. I reach this verdict after considering the popular ‘ought’-implies-‘can’ objection to Bayesian Epistemology. The second chapter argues that it is important for theories in Bayesian Epistemology to answer the Evidence Question, and distinguishes between internalist and externalist answers. The third and fourth chapters present and defend a specific answer to the Evidence Question. The account is inspired by reliabilist accounts of justification, and attempts to understand what it is to have evidence by appealing solely to considerations of reliability. Chapter 3 explains how to understand reliability, and how the account fits with Bayesian Epistemology, in particular, the requirement that an agent’s evidence receive probability 1. Chapter 4 responds to objections, which maintain that the account gives the wrong verdict in a variety of situations including skeptical scenarios, lottery cases, scientific cases, and cases involving inference. After slight modifications, I argue that my account has the resources to answer the objections. The fifth chapter considers the possibility of losing evidence. I show how my account can model these cases. To do so, however, we require a modification to Conditionalization, the orthodox principle governing belief change. I present such a modification. The sixth and seventh chapters propose a new understanding of Dutch Book Arguments, historically important arguments for Bayesian principles. The proposal shows that the Dutch Book Arguments for implausible principles are defective, while the ones for plausible principles are not. The final chapter is a conclusion.

Student Number : 0311005K - MA dissertation - School of Social Sciences - Faculty of Humanities / In this paper I track the work of Alvin Goldman, the American epistemologist, from 1979 to 1992 to assess its adequacy as a theory of justified belief. Many philosophers have pointed out that the theory faces problems, the three most important of which I consider. The first is the “clairvoyance problem.” In this case we intuitively deny the status of “justified” to certain beliefs produced by the reliable process of clairvoyance. This indicates that reliable belief formation is not sufficient for justification. The “generality problem,” the second problem, concerns the correct identification and description of the process forming each belief. If the process cannot be identified, then no assessment can be made of a belief’s epistemic status. Moreover, if the process is described too narrowly such that each process only has one output belief, then all true beliefs will be “justified” and all false beliefs “unjustified,” an unacceptable result. If the process is described too broadly then all output beliefs of that process will share an equal epistemic status, also an unacceptable result. Finally, it is possible to challenge the necessity of reliable formation for justification using the case of a cognizer in an evil demon world such that his unreliable visual beliefs are intuitively “justified” since those beliefs are produced by the same reliable processes in our world where they produce justified beliefs. I defend Goldman against these challenges by elucidating subtleties in Goldman’s work that answer these problems and by adding three necessary conditions to his theory. I argue that by modifying Goldman’s early work and rejecting parts of his later work, we can formulate a version of his theory that counts as an adequate theory of justified belief immune to the foregoing problems.

Versions of naturalized epistemology that overlook or reject apriority ignore innate belief-forming processes that provide much of the grounding for epistemic warrant. A rigorous analysis reveals that non-experiential ways of viewing apriority, such as innateness, establish the domain for a plausible naturalistic theory of a priori warrant. A moderate version of naturalistic epistemology that embraces the non-experiential feature of apriority and motivates future cognitive scientific research is the preferred account.

My aim is to challenge recent attempts at reconciling moral realism and naturalism by pushing ethical naturalists into a dilemma. According to one horn of the dilemma, ethical naturalists must either (a) build unique facts and properties about divergent social structures (or varying moral belief systems) into their subvenient sets of natural facts and properties, and so jeopardize the objectivity of moral truths, or (b) insist, in the face of all possible worlds in which people have different moral beliefs than ours, that they are all mistaken—this despite the fact that the belief-forming mechanism responsible for their moral beliefs was never concerned with the truth of those beliefs in the first place. This will bring me to suggest that moral properties might only weakly supervene upon natural phenomena. But, according to the other horn of the dilemma, weak supervenience is a defeater for moral knowledge.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-14T12:12:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.PDF: 592160 bytes, checksum: 1e3e2e63a1177515b3803954795fa703 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-09-29 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / The purpose of this dissertation is to defend the position known in epistemic literature as epistemic externalism. This position essentially consists in the thesis that some of the features which determine when a belief is a case of knowledge or a case of justified belief are external to the epistemic agent, i.e., they are not internal states of the agent, nor need to be consciously accessed by him. We neither criticize any particular internalist theory, nor advocate a particular externalist theory. Instead, we discuss three different topics that work as a general motivation for adopting externalism. The option for these topics is guided by an interest in naturalistic epistemology and in recent discussions of epistemology. First, we discuss the use of cases the description of imaginary cases with the intent to emphasize the intuition of a particular proposition or to show the counterintuitive consequence of a theory in the debate between internalists and externalists. We try to provide a sort of psychological diagnosis of the use of this intuitive tool and argue that the literature on concepts psychology suggests an advantage for externalist theories. Second, we discuss the contextualist approach about the skeptical paradox and its relation to conceptual analysis. We argue that a semantic approach fails to solve the paradox and that the proper understanding of its origin, and also an invariantist rejection of the contextualist approach, provide a motivation to accept the externalist solution of the problem. At last, we deal with John Pollock s criticism against externalism the idea that a proper naturalistic theory of justification has to be internalist. We analyze whether his refutation really affects all form of externalism, particularly, process reliabilism. We present Pollock s procedural theory of epistemic norms, and discuss if the reasons he presents can actually refute process reliabilism. We claim that the reasons presented do not really put Pollock s project in an advantage. / A proposta deste trabalho é defender a posição conhecida na literatura epistemológica como externalismo epistêmico. O externalismo epistêmico consiste essencialmente na tese de que alguns dos fatores que determinam quando uma crença constitui um caso de conhecimento ou um caso de crença justificada são externos ao agente epistêmico, i.e., não são estados internos ao sujeito, nem precisam ser acessados conscientemente por ele. Nós não atacamos nenhuma teoria particular do internalismo, ou mesmo defendemos uma teoria externalista particular. Em lugar disto, discutimos três tópicos distintos que servem de motivação geral para a adoção do externalismo. A escolha destes tópicos é guiada pelo interesse em uma epistemologia naturalizada e em discussões recentes da epistemologia. Primeiro, nós discutimos a utilização da análise de casos a descrição de casos imaginários com a intenção de salientar a intuição de uma proposição particular ou mostrar a consequência antiintuitiva de uma teoria no debate entre internalistas e externalistas. Nós tentamos fornecer uma espécie de diagnóstico psicológico sobre o uso desta ferramenta intuitiva e argumentamos que a literatura em psicologia de conceitos sugere um favorecimento a teorias externalistas. Segundo, nós discutimos a abordagem contextualista sobre o paradoxo cético e sua relação com a análise conceitual. Nós argumentamos que uma abordagem semântica falha em resolver o paradoxo e que a compreensão adequada de sua origem, assim como uma rejeição invariantista da posição contextualista, fornece uma motivação para aceitarmos a solução externalista do problema. Por último, nós tratamos da crítica de John Pollock ao externalismo, que consiste justamente na ideia de que uma teoria de justificação naturalista adequada deve ser internalista. Nós analisamos se sua refutação realmente atinge toda forma de externalismo e, em particular, o confiabilismo de processo. Nós apresentamos a teoria procedimental de normas epistêmicas de Pollock e discutimos se as razões que ele apresenta podem realmente refutar o confiabilismo de processo. Nós defendemos que as razões que são apresentadas não colocam realmente o projeto de Pollock em vantagem.

No description available.

No description available.

We assume that the central focus of epistemology is propositional knowledge (S knows that P). However, since some true beliefs are true by accident, the central question raised by epistemologists is: What becomes a mere true belief into knowledge? There are several answers to this question, many of them conflicting with each other. Among the answers we find two perspectives that compete with each other as the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge, namely, the internalist and externalist perspectives. For the epistemological externalism mind the external factors in the formation of belief. The research aims to discuss some issues that connect externalism a proper way of thinking about truth and what we do when we take a belief to be true. The theoretical discussion will use the externalist perspective of Alvin Goldman seeking a normative theory of justification, assuming that a belief is caused by a reliable process. Goldman, for example, states that the explanation of justified belief is necessary for knowledge and is closely related to it. Asserts that the term "justified" is an evaluative term and any correct definition or synonym for "justified" would also be an evaluative term. Thus, Goldman seeks a normative theory of justification for such a search to specify the conditions for substantive epistemic belief. However, he said conditions should be a non-epistemic, that is, necessary and sufficient conditions that do not involve any epistemic notions. Goldman complains that most of the time it is assumed that someone has a justified belief because that person knows that the belief is justified and know what is the justification. This means that justification is an argument or a set of reasons that can be given in favor of a belief, but it just tells us that the nature of justified belief with regard to what a person might say if asked to defend or justify belief. Instead, Goldman thinks that a belief is justified only by some process or property that makes it justified. / Partiremos do pressuposto que o foco central da epistemologia é o conhecimento proposicional (S sabe que P). Entretanto, uma vez que algumas crenças verdadeiras são verdadeiras por acaso, a questão central formulada pelos epistemólogos é a seguinte: O que converte a mera crença verdadeira em conhecimento? Existem diversas respostas para essa questão, muitas delas conflitantes entre si. Entre as respostas encontramos duas perspectivas que competem entre si quanto às condições necessárias e suficientes para o conhecimento, a saber, as perspectivas internalista e externalista. Para o externalismo epistemológico importam os fatores externos na formação da crença. A pesquisa procura discutir algumas questões que conectam o externalismo a uma adequada maneira de pensar sobre a verdade e o que fazemos quando tomamos uma crença como sendo verdadeira. Como referencial teórico utilizaremos a perspectiva externalista de Alvin Goldman que busca uma teoria normativa da justificação, pressupondo que uma crença é originada por um processo confiável. Goldman, por exemplo, afirma que a explicação da crença justificada é necessária para o conhecimento e está intimamente relacionada a ele. Assevera que o termo justificada é um termo valorativo e qualquer definição correta ou sinônimo de justificada seria também um termo valorativo. Assim, Goldman busca uma teoria normativa da justificação, para tal procura especificar as condições substantivas para a crença epistêmica. Contudo, afirma que tais condições deverão ser condições não epistêmicas, isto é, condições necessárias e suficientes que não envolvem quaisquer noções epistêmicas. Goldman critica que na maioria das vezes se assume que alguém tem uma crença justificada porque essa pessoa sabe que a crença é justificada e sabe qual é a justificação. Isso significa dizer que a justificação é um argumento ou um conjunto de razões que podem ser dadas a favor de uma crença, mas isso simplesmente nos diz que a natureza da crença justificada diz respeito ao que uma pessoa poderia dizer se fosse solicitada a defender ou justificar sua crença. Ao contrário, Goldman pensa que uma crença só é justificada através de algum processo ou propriedade que a torna justificada.